Hi, Mr. Schiller-
Jeff Schiller wrote (on 5/1/09 4:31 PM):
> On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Doug Schepers<schepers@w3.org> wrote:
>> Yes, we intend for them to be more or less the same in terms of syntax and
>> functionality. What specifically did you have in mind?
>
> The biggest one I could think of is being able to specify a feed for a
> given SVG document:
>
> <svg...>
> <link rel="alternate" type="application/atom+xml" title="Some feed"
> href="http://www.example.com/feed.atom" />
> </svg>
>
> But of course there are many other relationships that would make sense
> (author, timesheet, etc).
Yes, all those make sense. I thought of feeds, but did not think of
timesheets, embarrassingly enough (since I've had conversations with
those guys about using timesheets in SVG). Jonathan Chetwynde also
mentioned linking to RDF resources (which could make good sense for
licenses, too).
Another good use might be linking to an alternate presentation of the
document, maybe something more geared to accessible access, or just
another visualization of the same data.
I had some ideas, but I was trolling for more, so thanks for delivering.
:) I'm also interested in other interesting uses.
> Would there be any restriction on where the <link> elements can exist?
> Children of <defs>? Anywhere in the document?
My own inclination is to allow it anywhere, but to caution authors that
it will likely be more efficient to put it toward the top of the
document, for progressive rendering. I suspect that browsers are
already optimized to expect it there for HTML content, and that that
would carry over to SVG.
Putting it in <defs> makes sense, and is a handy place to store "meta"
resources, but since <link> won't render, it's not critical. I think a
lot of people equate <defs> with <head> conceptually, and it's a pretty
fair comparison. (Although it looks weird to me, personally, when I see
<style> or <script> in a <defs>.)
Regards-
-Doug Schepers
W3C Team Contact, SVG and WebApps WGs